I highly respect Amin and especially his early work ("the Young Amin") which was very empirical. His later work is less so.
My quick impressions on this one:
My quick impressions on this one:
1 The review of international pol economy of E Asia's rise (present in other Amin's works & Arrighi) is excellent.
2 Accent on inability to alienate land exaggerates its importance (30y rent is not v diff from selling the land) and the USSR/China comparison there is not v useful.
2 Accent on inability to alienate land exaggerates its importance (30y rent is not v diff from selling the land) and the USSR/China comparison there is not v useful.
3 It is twice claimed that peasant land occupations in the Summer of 1917 determined the evolution of USSR (and indirectly China). Not plausible.
4 Similarities btw NEP and 1978 Deng are much more important.
5 Mao's policies did not have the consistency that Amin claims for them
4 Similarities btw NEP and 1978 Deng are much more important.
5 Mao's policies did not have the consistency that Amin claims for them
6 Hokou may be a better explanation for the absence of slums than inability to sell land
7 Amin accepts China is political capitalist
8 But like world system theorists defines capitalism primarily through unfree connection to the core rather than domestic relations of production.
7 Amin accepts China is political capitalist
8 But like world system theorists defines capitalism primarily through unfree connection to the core rather than domestic relations of production.
9 Had he used the latter, he would have concluded that China is capitalist.
10 The key difference I think is 8 vs. 9.
10 The key difference I think is 8 vs. 9.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
